La Grande Jatte is a spectacular piece of art to say the least. This is a piece of art by Georges Pierre Surat and focuses primarily on the leisure activities that would take place on a normal Sunday afternoon. The fact that this piece of art is remarkable and very impressive has raised an array of mixed reactions the world over. Authors and analysts as well as art enthusiasts in the world over have expressed their opinion on this piece of art. This is with regard to the stylistic expertise employed by the artist to the psychological disposition of the artist at the time of making this piece of art to the deeper meaning behind this piece of art. Moreover, what the artist is really trying to say about society in his work. Nochlin Linda and Hollis Clayson are two such authors that have expressed their points of view with regard to La Grande Jatte. Hollis seems to focus more on what the painting says about family and how family matters and leisure activities relate. According to Hollis, leisure activities are detrimental to the cohesion of the nuclear family and proceed to back this claim with apparent evidence from the painting. Hollis however finds the color used in the painting to be very significant. This is because Hollis even refers to color blindness with reference to this piece of art thus alluding to acknowledgement of the impressive array of colors used in this particular painting. Linda on the other hand focuses more on the levels of interaction between the figures in the painting on this Sunday afternoon leisure activity. According to Linda, there is minimal social interaction between people in modern society and tis fact is clearly represented in the painting and stands out as perhaps one of the main themes of the painting in question.
According to author Hollis Clayson, leisure activities are detrimental to the cohesion of family and the development of family values as s depicted in the painting. Hollis points out the patterns of people present in the painting as evidence of this assertion. The author points to the mother and the child holding hands and facing the audience in the painting as an element of evidence of this assertion. This mother and child are conspicuously missing a father and the fact that they are facing the audience directly points to the fact that they are trying to point out the absence of a father in their midst. The author also points out three more pairs of mothers and daughters in the painting all without a man. There is however one nuclear family in the painting which consists of a mother, father, and child.
It appears that these two authors are trying to convey the same message but have just identified different aspects of this artwork to do so. Hollis focuses on family values and how apparently they have been neglected in favor of leisure activities by members of mainstream society. Linda on the other hand focuses on the minimal levels of interaction between people in the painting. In addition, she focuses on how these levels of interaction are reflective of the fact that people prefer to live in isolation or rather in complete ignorance of other people around them all in favor of self-preservation. These two authors therefore agree on the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with society. They both point out the fact that the people in the painting are acting contrary to what is expected of them as members of an active society.
As an outgoing person that is very fond of leisure activities, the sentiments expressed by Hollis are true to say the least. It is very rare to come across a complete nuclear family on any leisure activities. The common sight is that of single parents and their children. This sentiment is clearly expressed in the painting and accurately interpreted by the author who clearly sees what the painter is trying to do or rather the message that the painter is trying to relay about society and its associated values.